Lord Rooker: An EU import ban on captive birds (including wild-caught birds) from third countries has been in place since October 2005 as a result of the worldwide avian influenza situation. It does not affect trade from other member states and there are limited exceptions for pet and zoo birds. On 4 July, the EU Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH), with the support of the UK, voted to extend the ban until 31 December 2006.
	This takes account of the fact that the European Commission has requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to carry out a review of the animal health and welfare risks associated with the import of captive wild birds. We are awaiting this report with interest and the UK will play an active and constructive part in EU discussions.
	Without clear scientific evidence, a long-term ban, whether a unilateral UK ban or an EU ban, is unlikely to be justifiable on the animal and public health permitted ground in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements, or on any another permitted ground. In order to comply with the WTO agreements, it is also necessary to ensure that any ban is not, in effect, a disguised restriction on trade or arbitrary discrimination between countries.
	With EU legislation already in place to address both conservation and animal health issues, any departure from an EU-wide position could be held to be in breach of trade rules under European Community law and result in infraction proceedings. In view of this, we believe that any decisions on a permanent ban should be addressed at EU level.
	The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species does allow countries to impose stricter, unilateral measures regarding the trade in specific convention-listed species.. However, as mentioned above, with the convention implemented at a Community level, any UK ban would need to be compatible with EC Regulation 338/97/EC and in accordance with Article 176 of the EC treaty. In view of this, it would be very difficult for the UK unilaterally to ban the trade in all wild birds.

Lord Triesman: While there are no decisions now taken in the legal fora of the UK which were formerly taken in the legal fora of the EU, the principle of subsidiarity ensures that:
	"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action ... only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".
	The principle of subsidiarity, now well recognised in Union law, was first enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty and elaborated in the interinstitutional agreement of 1993 and later in the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997. The Government believe that the institutions are actively applying the principle in practice as part of the policy-making and legislative process and in that context welcomes the Commission's recent commitment to make all new proposals and consultation papers directly available to national parliaments so as to improve the process of policy formulation. The June 2006 European Council conclusions also ask the Commission duly to consider comments by national parliaments—in particular with regard to the subsidiarity and proportionality principles.

Lord Triesman: HM Revenue and Customs target goods on the basis of risk and, in particular, on the basis of information which all member states have received from the European Commission in respect of goods which are either known to originate in, or are suspected of originating in, settlements.
	Under a technical arrangement adopted by the EU-Israel Customs Co-operation Committee on 12 December 2004, all imports from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories and claiming Israeli preferential origin have been required since 1 February 2005 to indicate the place of production and accompanying zip code. The full rate of customs duty is payable on any consignment which is indicated as originating in a settlement.

Lord Triesman: We understand that for some Muslims the state of the Middle East peace process remains a genuine source of anger and that it can distort the view of what the UK and other governments stand for and believe in. We share the desire to see a peaceful solution. The international community is committed to progress towards a viable two-state solution. But to get to that objective, on which we all agree, there needs to be clear acceptance by Hamas that the two-state solution is the only one; a renunciation of all violence; and then a move back into the road map.

Lord Triesman: A group of doctors and intellectuals from the Beja tribe in Eastern Sudan wrote to the UN Secretary General on 2 July. They highlighted the poor humanitarian situation of the Beja and appealed to Kofi Annan and to the international community to exert pressure on the Government of Sudan to allow unrestricted access for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and humanitarian aid agencies.
	We share the concerns highlighted by the Beja doctors and intellectuals on the humanitarian situation in Eastern Sudan. Large numbers of people live in extreme poverty in Eastern Sudan, and in some cases humanitarian indicators are worse than those of Darfur.
	As identified in the letter, access restrictions imposed on humanitarian agencies by the Government of Sudan continue to hamper the ability of UN agencies and NGOs to provide essential services. We are pressing the Government of Sudan for unimpeded and safe access for all humanitarian agencies. We hope that a successful outcome of the peace talks due to begin in Asmara on 17 July will aid this process.
	This year the UK, through the Department for International Development (DfID), has provided £49 million to the Common Humanitarian Fund for Sudan, some of which will be directed to the east. Additionally DfID is supporting bilateral humanitarian programmes in the east through Action Contre La Faim and Oxfam. This will go towards providing food aid and security, shelter, nutrition and health services in the region.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Road vehicles registered in the UK must comply with the relevant European Commission directive on electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). For volume produced passenger cars, this is Directive 95/54/EC. Cars produced in low volumes, and petrol engined trucks and large passenger vehicles, must comply with Directive 72/245/EC. Motorcycles should comply with Directive 97/24/EC. Diesel-powered trucks and large passenger vehicles are not currently subject to EMC requirements, pending the introduction of EC whole vehicle type approval for these vehicles.
	These directives are created at European Community level with input from experts from all member states. In the UK, electromagnetic compatibility is checked by the Vehicle Certification Agency and the Vehicle Operator Services Agency.
	A number of standards apply to electromagnetic compatibility testing on railways. For the national rail network, the standards are defined in Railway Group Standards and enforced by the HM Railway Inspectorate as part of its enforcement of operational safety cases.
	Railway equipment newly placed on the market is also certified to European harmonised standards under Directive 2004/108/EC. Enforcement of such standards remains with HM Railway Inspectorate, now part of the Office of Rail Regulation.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their latest estimate of United Kingdom expenditure since 1972 on the implementation of (a) the Bathing Water Directive; (b) the Drinking Water Directive; and (c) the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive.

Lord Rooker: Water supply and sewerage services are devolved matters, so I will confine my reply to England and Wales, which use the same regulatory frameworks. The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive was adopted by the Council of the European Communities in May 1991; its implementation would not have incurred any expenditure prior to this date.
	Since privatisation the water industry has invested more than £55 billion (between 1990 and 2004-05) in water and wastewater services, asset maintenance, environmental improvements, and securing supply and service improvements. This is an average annual capital investment in the water industry of more than £3.7 billion over the past 15 years. During the 1980s, the equivalent investment figure was £2 billion per year.
	Around £26.5 billion of the investment which has taken place since privatisation is directly related to sewerage service and water quality improvements. Because expenditure often meets multiple objectives, however, it is not possible separately to distinguish the expenditure needed to meet individual European directives.